Yup, although I've heard it referred to as "hard-core/soft-core". But, same thing. And I was hoping to engage the original poster in an exploration of which category he felt was most valid.
Concerning the "outer spiral arm" bit - yes, the universe is big and the earth is small. But an odd thing happended several thousand years ago - a fellow was born under odd circumstances, made all sorts of outlandish claims about being God, did many very interesting things, and then died and came back to life again. This gave many people pause for thought, and still does to this day.
Actually, she said "yes", and then said that God had said some stuff that he hadn't. So she was starting to slip even at that moment.
> There's nothing in there that even > implies that she knew ahead of time > that it would be wrong to obey God.
Hm. She knew that God had told them not to eat of that tree. Are you really suggesting that she didn't know that to disobey God was wrong? Isn't that a bit implausible?
> there is a wide gap between believing > the universe was created and > picking a particular diety
Yes, I agree, concluding that the universe appears to have been designed is only a first step. This conclusion raises many questions, though - who is the designer? Why did he make us? How should we then live? And all that.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
No. He had foreknowledge that you would _choose_ to be an atheist for a certain period of time. Who knows what else your life will bring? Good things, I hope, oh thou poster to this day-old Slashdot thread! Nobody left here but us chickens...
> if the entity with the foreknowlege > is omnipotent and omniscient
This seems to be our point of disagreement. We need to find a different way to approach this; I think we're talking past each other.
> Otherwise my future is already written > and fated to be what god thinks > it's going to be
Hm. The thing is, that God exists outside of time. He doesn't see the future stretching ahead and the past trailing behind. So God doesn't "think something's going to happen" - instead, he sees it as it occurred/will occur/whatever.
> show me some hard evidence > for the existance of God
The parent poster had said he was an atheist - i.e., he knew that God did not exist. So I asked him how he knew that. Perhaps he's an agnostic, instead - i.e., he's not sure whether or not God exists.
> beliefs are beliefs
Hm. Do you feel that beliefs cannot be discussed reasonable?
> the sooner you learn to > keep them to yourself,
Heh, well, you know, that's what happens in a thread called "Game with God":-)
Since people are not saved by their good works, a baby can be saved like anyone else.
> having such a caveat means > most people are damned
The question, though, is "why is anyone at all saved?"
> everybody before Christ died is damned
No, some of them were saved as well. "Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness", and all that.
> I cannot believe that a loving God > would by default send everybody to > hell unless they earned their way into heaven
That's not how it works. It's the other way around - we all do our best to offend God and to get into hell, but in His infinite mercy he chooses to redeem some.
> that the acquisition of knowledge > by man would make man akin to > the Gods in power
Hm. Genesis 3:5 says that the serpent told Eve that if she ate of the fruit, her "eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." That doesn't mean that they would be as powerful as God - just that they would then know good and evil, as God also does.
Besides, this is the serpent - the deceiver - talking to Eve. The Prince of Lies, as 'twere.
> When man is akin to the Gods in > power than man will have no need of God
Hm. I think this is a blind alley - since Eve ate the fruit and didn't become as powerful as God, I mean....
> Heirarchical church structures [...] > teach it as disobedience.
God knew what they would choose, but they made the choice.
> a handicapped person dies, they go to hell.
Not necessarily. Since we're saved through no virtues of our own, that person may well be saved. It would be much worse if someone could save himself through good works.
> The baby wasnt able to redeem > itself of original sin
No one can redeem himself.
> since the bible contradtics it many times
How so?
Re:Semi-serious?
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
> it means that free will is illusory:
Foreknowledge isn't "prediction", it's foreknowledge. God isn't bound by our linear view of time.
> if God could pick the outcome
We pick the outcome, and we always choose to sin.
> its disingenuous to ignore > almost an entire argument
Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. But I felt your argument was based upon foreknowledge implying that free will didn't exist, and I tried to respond to that.
> what does that mean about his > motivations in Creation
I'm not sure if I can speak to God's motivation.
> why would he make those creations > dislike worship so much?
What do you mean by "dislike worship"? Do you mean "dislike going to church"? I don't understand...
> your god
Hm. I don't have any claim to God...
> If I die, I honestly hope I don't face him
But you will, and you will. Just like everyone else.
Here's what's disgusting - that God would interact with man at all. That he would stoop to redeem us from our sin is even worse. Anyhow who isn't amazed and shocked by Christianity doesn't understand it.
> what's the point
Because he wanted to give man choice.
> the full foreknowledge that they would Fall
Yes. But foreknowledge does not imply a lack of choice.
Slashdot Mirror
> [strong/weak atheism distinction]
Yup, although I've heard it referred to as "hard-core/soft-core". But, same thing. And I was hoping to engage the original poster in an exploration of which category he felt was most valid.
> the outer spiral arm
I daresay you're familiar with this Python ditty.
> either he's an extremely inefficient
Well.... it's difficult to make assertions about inefficiency concerning God. If it costs him nothing to create, why not create a lot?
> we are just one life form of many
Hm, could be, dunno.
> the only technique he could use
> was a brute force semi-random
Possibly.
> I don't just come out and say
> "there cannot be a god"
Quite right.
> the god described by Christianity
> is not possible given the universe
> as it exists
Well... _not possible_, them's pretty strong words.
Concerning the "outer spiral arm" bit - yes, the universe is big and the earth is small. But an odd thing happended several thousand years ago - a fellow was born under odd circumstances, made all sorts of outlandish claims about being God, did many very interesting things, and then died and came back to life again. This gave many people pause for thought, and still does to this day.
...skeptically. Which is nice.
> she said yes
Actually, she said "yes", and then said that God had said some stuff that he hadn't. So she was starting to slip even at that moment.
> There's nothing in there that even
> implies that she knew ahead of time
> that it would be wrong to obey God.
Hm. She knew that God had told them not to eat of that tree. Are you really suggesting that she didn't know that to disobey God was wrong? Isn't that a bit implausible?
Yup, I think those methods were moved into a new Base64 module after the 1.8.1 release. There are some notes on it here.
> that evidence, it doesn't look convincing
That's fair, although I disagree.
> there is a wide gap between believing
> the universe was created and
> picking a particular diety
Yes, I agree, concluding that the universe appears to have been designed is only a first step. This conclusion raises many questions, though - who is the designer? Why did he make us? How should we then live? And all that.
Very interesting, thanks!
> Prediction IS foreknowledge.
How's that?
> God had foreknowledge that I would become
No. He had foreknowledge that you would _choose_ to be an atheist for a certain period of time. Who knows what else your life will bring? Good things, I hope, oh thou poster to this day-old Slashdot thread! Nobody left here but us chickens...
> because disbelief is the reasonable
> default hypothesis for any
> proposed existence question.
> It's the only falsifiable position.
Succinctly put. But there's a great deal of evidence that the universe was intelligently designed.
> if the entity with the foreknowlege
> is omnipotent and omniscient
This seems to be our point of disagreement. We need to find a different way to approach this; I think we're talking past each other.
> Otherwise my future is already written
> and fated to be what god thinks
> it's going to be
Hm. The thing is, that God exists outside of time. He doesn't see the future stretching ahead and the past trailing behind. So God doesn't "think something's going to happen" - instead, he sees it as it occurred/will occur/whatever.
> Humans have an innate desire for
> freedom and independance
True, if there's no God, then I have no responsibilities, nor can I ever sin.
> Living in a world with a god in it
> is kind of like living in your
> parents house...forever!
Heh, that's a neat analogy, never heard it put that way before.
> Life just isn't worth living if
> somebody else has so much power over you.
Actually, I'd submit that life isn't worth living if there's no purpose to it.
> show me some hard evidence
:-)
> for the existance of God
The parent poster had said he was an atheist - i.e., he knew that God did not exist. So I asked him how he knew that. Perhaps he's an agnostic, instead - i.e., he's not sure whether or not God exists.
> beliefs are beliefs
Hm. Do you feel that beliefs cannot be discussed reasonable?
> the sooner you learn to
> keep them to yourself,
Heh, well, you know, that's what happens in a thread called "Game with God"
> Everything just has to be
> settled by someone dying
Seems like it. For more on this topic, "Till We Have Faces" by C.S. Lewis is a good read.
> These arose spontaneously
Did they? Then are they binding in any sense?
> religious egocentrism.
Heh, yes, and there's a phrase for assuming the sun is at the center of the solar system - heliocentrism.
> non-Jesuslike.
Don't forget that Jesus was the one that said "no man comes to the Father but by me".
> China did it first
Really?
> Anybody who wastes time debating
> nonsensical religious concepts with a
> moron is a moron.
Would you call the British atheist Bertrand Russell a moron? After all, he wrote a book "Why I Am Not A Christian".
> your kind are doomed to death
Heh, true, but who ain't?
> how did they know it was
> evil to eat of the tree?
They knew that disobeying God was wrong - that's why Eve argued with the serpent for a bit when he tempted her.
> But without the knowledge of good
> and evil, they have no knowledge
> that disobediance is evil
They knew that to disobey God was wrong - that's why Eve said "God told us not to eat of the tree".
> no religious precept can be argued for logically
To the contrary, we can indeed logically evaluate religions based on their claims.
Because God specifically told them not to do it.
> What about babies
Since people are not saved by their good works, a baby can be saved like anyone else.
> having such a caveat means
> most people are damned
The question, though, is "why is anyone at all saved?"
> everybody before Christ died is damned
No, some of them were saved as well. "Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness", and all that.
> I cannot believe that a loving God
> would by default send everybody to
> hell unless they earned their way into heaven
That's not how it works. It's the other way around - we all do our best to offend God and to get into hell, but in His infinite mercy he chooses to redeem some.
> that the acquisition of knowledge
> by man would make man akin to
> the Gods in power
Hm. Genesis 3:5 says that the serpent told Eve that if she ate of the fruit, her "eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." That doesn't mean that they would be as powerful as God - just that they would then know good and evil, as God also does.
Besides, this is the serpent - the deceiver - talking to Eve. The Prince of Lies, as 'twere.
> When man is akin to the Gods in
> power than man will have no need of God
Hm. I think this is a blind alley - since Eve ate the fruit and didn't become as powerful as God, I mean....
> Heirarchical church structures [...]
> teach it as disobedience.
Hm. Not sure what you mean here....
> the ONLY way Sun is directly making
> money out of Java IS licensing
> j2me implementation
Hm, good point. So raising awareness could lead to more licensees... good point.
> I am an atheist.
How do you _know_ that God does not exist?
> their choice was already fore-ordained
God knew what they would choose, but they made the choice.
> a handicapped person dies, they go to hell.
Not necessarily. Since we're saved through no virtues of our own, that person may well be saved. It would be much worse if someone could save himself through good works.
> The baby wasnt able to redeem
> itself of original sin
No one can redeem himself.
> since the bible contradtics it many times
How so?
> it means that free will is illusory:
Foreknowledge isn't "prediction", it's foreknowledge. God isn't bound by our linear view of time.
> if God could pick the outcome
We pick the outcome, and we always choose to sin.
> its disingenuous to ignore
> almost an entire argument
Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. But I felt your argument was based upon foreknowledge implying that free will didn't exist, and I tried to respond to that.
> what does that mean about his
> motivations in Creation
I'm not sure if I can speak to God's motivation.
> why would he make those creations
> dislike worship so much?
What do you mean by "dislike worship"? Do you mean "dislike going to church"? I don't understand...
> your god
Hm. I don't have any claim to God...
> If I die, I honestly hope I don't face him
But you will, and you will. Just like everyone else.
> This God sounds like an asshole
Yet he sent his son to die for our sins. Odd, isn't it?
> how can we derive moral
> authority from this guy?
There's nowhere else to go. He is, as it were, the only game in town.
> it's best to ignore the Old Testament
Don't do that, or you'll miss out on the lyrics to U2's song "40".
> original sin is a disgusting idea
Here's what's disgusting - that God would interact with man at all. That he would stoop to redeem us from our sin is even worse. Anyhow who isn't amazed and shocked by Christianity doesn't understand it.
> what's the point
Because he wanted to give man choice.
> the full foreknowledge that they would Fall
Yes. But foreknowledge does not imply a lack of choice.
> why should one worship such a being?
Because He is God.